Ugly win against Montreal

[OpIv37]

I never know what to think about games like this.

One one hand, the 3rd period was probably the most dominant period I've seen from the Sabres yet. Lindy made a great call putting Vanek, Roy and Pominville together- I hope he doesn't stick with it long-term because it makes our lines very lopsided, but it's what we needed tonight.

Enroth definitely came to play. And for all the criticism I've given to Vanek over the years, he's ridiculous on the shootout. Nothing fancy- just blasts a wrist shot past the goalie and makes it look easy every time.

And we got the 2 points on the road.

On the other hand, we looked amateurish and unprepared for the first two periods. Enroth was the only one who came to play. As bad as Myers has been, I don't know why he was in the press box while Leopold was playing because Leopold was absolutely brutal. Even Regehr screwed up on the 2nd goal, doubling the guy with the puck while two Habs stood open on the other side.

We gave up a goal while on the PK to one of the worst PP teams in the league, and our PP failed to score on the 4 on 3 despite two chances totaling almost 4 min of playing time.

And because we showed up 2 periods late, we gave up the extra point to an EC team for the 3rd time in 5 games.

We got the win, but we didn't play well against a very average Montreal team. I know I'll probably take **** for complaining about a win, but just for once, try not to look at it in terms of this game but in terms of the overall picture. This team has shown some major flaws, many of which have carried over from previous years. And we don't get to play teams that are at Montreal's level or worse. If we put up that kind of effort against Pittsburgh, Philly, Washington, Tampa Bay, even Toronto or the Rangers (not to mention 1/2 the Western conference), we lose.

[jcdavey]

my habs get pretty soft with leads

it's sickening

but that said, i'm glad they're playing better than the first couple weeks of the season


that cole on enroth hit looked pretty nasty

[Jan Reimers]

Sometimes, Op, you should just enjoy the win.

The third period and the SO were things of beauty.

[Dr. Lecter]

They won and are one point out of first in the East. All of that despite not playing their best yet.

Methinks you need to look at the big picture.

And, maybe, just maybe, admit that Vanek does not suck at scoring goals. He is one of the best goal scorers in the NHL.

You always say there is never anything good in a loss. If that is true, back off *****ing about wins. You always say that is all you want of the team. So they win and you still are not happy.

[TheGhostofJimKelly]

Ugly win, no consistency from their top players, no heart, they are in first place in the division. I wonder what will happen when they get those things in a line.

[Dr. Lecter]

And, fwiw, the PK is 3rd in the league and the PP 11th.

[Dr. Lecter]

As for consistency - Vanek has goals in 8 different games. That is tied for 3rd in the NHL.

He has played in 17 games. In the first 6 games he had 3 goals. In the next 6 he had 4 goals. In the last 5 he has 4 goals.

Pretty consistent.

[SabreEleven]

I'd like to know what was said between the 2nd and 3rd because that looked like a totally different team in the 3rd.

[Skooby]

Who were those 3rd period guys ??

[TheGhostofJimKelly]

As for consistency - Vanek has goals in 8 different games. That is tied for 3rd in the NHL.

He has played in 17 games. In the first 6 games he had 3 goals. In the next 6 he had 4 goals. In the last 5 he has 4 goals.

Pretty consistent.

That was me being sarcastic BTW.

[Dr. Lecter]

I know.

IT was not for you.

I am awaiting being called a blind homer who does not open my eyes though!

[hydro]

I never know what to think about games like this.

Huh? Of course you know what to say. This is the same thing you always say. About 5% of your post is giving the team credit and the rest is telling us everything they didn't do right. Par for the course, business as usual.

[OpIv37]

They won and are one point out of first in the East. All of that despite not playing their best yet.

Methinks you need to look at the big picture.

And, maybe, just maybe, admit that Vanek does not suck at scoring goals. He is one of the best goal scorers in the NHL.

You always say there is never anything good in a loss. If that is true, back off *****ing about wins. You always say that is all you want of the team. So they win and you still are not happy.

Vanek has been one of the best goal-scorers in the NHL..... for all of 12 games. If you go back and look at the numbers, that statement simply isn't true until VERY recently. And I'm not willing to let 12 games override 4 years.

And that's EXACTLY why I'm still concerned about the larger picture. I don't have confidence that Vanek will keep up this pace. I don't have confidence that we can beat the better teams, especially when we've only managed 2 goals in regulation in 6 of the last 8 games. I don't have confidence that we can win with such a poor PP. I don't have confidence that this team can play complete games.

[OpIv37]

As for consistency - Vanek has goals in 8 different games. That is tied for 3rd in the NHL.

He has played in 17 games. In the first 6 games he had 3 goals. In the next 6 he had 4 goals. In the last 5 he has 4 goals.

Pretty consistent.

Again, that's over a 17 game period.

Vanek has NEVER been able to maintain that kind of consistency over his career. You're letting 17 games override 4-5 years.

[Dr. Lecter]

Vanek has been one of the best goal-scorers in the NHL..... for all of 12 games. If you go back and look at the numbers, that statement simply isn't true until VERY recently. And I'm not willing to let 12 games override 4 years.

And that's EXACTLY why I'm still concerned about the larger picture. I don't have confidence that Vanek will keep up this pace. I don't have confidence that we can beat the better teams, especially when we've only managed 2 goals in regulation in 6 of the last 8 games. I don't have confidence that we can win with such a poor PP. I don't have confidence that this team can play complete games.
Actually I bet over the past 4 years he is top ten or top 15 in the NHL in goals scored per game.

And the PP is NOT poor. Do you even read other people's posts?

They are 11th in the NHL. Not great. Above average.

Definitely not poor.

[Dr. Lecter]

Op - who do you consider good goal scorers in the NHL?

Give me twenty names that are better than Vanek.

[Dr. Lecter]

Again, that's over a 17 game period.

Vanek has NEVER been able to maintain that kind of consistency over his career. You're letting 17 games override 4-5 years.
And you said elsewhere that he has been inconsistent this year.

You were wrong and way offbase.

[OpIv37]

Huh? Of course you know what to say. This is the same thing you always say. About 5% of your post is giving the team credit and the rest is telling us everything they didn't do right. Par for the course, business as usual.

Last year: First round playoff exit.
Two years ago: First round playoff exit.
Three years ago: No playoffs
Four years ago: No playoffs.

It's the things they do wrong that define this team, not the things they do right.

And btw, this post is going down the rabbit hole again. Rather than addressing the points I made about the team and how they played, it's criticizing my tone and what I've said in the past.

[OpIv37]

And you said elsewhere that he has been inconsistent this year.

You were wrong and way offbase.

I NEVER said he was inconsistent this year. I said he and Roy never seem to both get hot at the same time.

Considering Roy's only had like 2 or 3 good games all year, that's NOT the same thing as saying that Vanek has been inconsistent.

[Dr. Lecter]

In all time NHL stats,Vanek is 61st in goals scored per game.

ALL TIME.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leaders/goals_per_game_career.html?mobile_long=false

And he is not a goal scorer?

He is 8th amongst active players.

What is your definition of a goal scorer?

[Dr. Lecter]

I NEVER said he was inconsistent this year. I said he and Roy never seem to both get hot at the same time.

Considering Roy's only had like 2 or 3 good games all year, that's NOT the same thing as saying that Vanek has been inconsistent.
Roy has played very well for about the 7 or 8 games. Saying he has only played well in 2 or 3 is false.

How many of the games have you watched?

[OpIv37]

In all time NHL stats,Vanek is 61st in goals scored per game.

ALL TIME.

http://www.hockey-reference.com/leaders/goals_per_game_career.html?mobile_long=false

And he is not a goal scorer?

He is 8th amongst active players.

What is your definition of a goal scorer?

Someone who CONSISTENTLY scores more than 40 a season, a feat that Vanek has only managed twice in his 6 full years. And don't blame injury because Vanek has never played less than 71 games and played 80+ in 4 of his six seasons.

[Dr. Lecter]

Last year: First round playoff exit.
Two years ago: First round playoff exit.
Three years ago: No playoffs
Four years ago: No playoffs.

It's the things they do wrong that define this team, not the things they do right.

And btw, this post is going down the rabbit hole again. Rather than addressing the points I made about the team and how they played, it's criticizing my tone and what I've said in the past.
Two things:

I have adressed what you said - I think the idea that Vanek is not an elite goal scorer has been set to rest. If you choose to pay attention to the facts.

And part of the reason your tone gets criticized is because you do not listen or pay attention to anything anybody else says and dismiss it all.

BTW - one other note - they said last night that in the last 3 years (or was it 5) Vanek is the leading PP goal scorer in the NHL.

What more does he have to do to be called a goal scorer?

[OpIv37]

Roy has played very well for about the 7 or 8 games. Saying he has only played well in 2 or 3 is false.

How many of the games have you watched?

The majority of them. I saw the whole game for about 10 of them, and portions of the game for probably 2 or 3 more.

[Dr. Lecter]

Someone who CONSISTENTLY scores more than 40 a season, a feat that Vanek has only managed twice in his 6 full years. And don't blame injury because Vanek has never played less than 71 games and played 80+ in 4 of his six seasons.


I did not blame injury. In fact, I used goals per game to eliminate that very variable. So don't pull that **** on me.

He is 8th amongst active players in goals per game. And 61st all time.

How many current players do score more than 40 year consistently?

That bar is not hit often in today's NHL. It just isn't.

This is why your tone gets criticized - I provided facts, stats and numbers and you choose to ignore them.

You know I respect you and read what you write - do the same back. Look at the stats. Vanek is one of the top 8 goals scorers in the NHL at this time.

That is a fact - whether you like it or not.

[OpIv37]

Two things:

I have adressed what you said - I think the idea that Vanek is not an elite goal scorer has been set to rest. If you choose to pay attention to the facts.

And part of the reason your tone gets criticized is because you do not listen or pay attention to anything anybody else says and dismiss it all.

BTW - one other note - they said last night that in the last 3 years (or was it 5) Vanek is the leading PP goal scorer in the NHL.

What more does he have to do to be called a goal scorer?

yes, you did respond to my points. Hydro, however, did not, and the post you quoted was a resonse to him. He went to the old tactic of challenging my tone and bringing up what I said in the past because he didn't have a good response to my points.

I dismiss what other people say with good reason: it's either wrong or it's countered by something I said.

And I told you what Vanek has to do: consistently score 40 in a season. And he can also start by improving on this:

http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/players/3344/gamelog;_ylt=AksHugVZSvRzK2vedhyQl_FivLYF?year=2010
From 2010-11:
Oct 29-Nov 7: 7 game streak with no goals.
Dec 11-Dec 28: 8 game streak with no goals, 1 assist
Feb 13- Feb 23: 6 game streak with no goals
Feb 26-Mar 6: 5 game streak with no goals
Mar 15- Mar 25: 5 game streak with no goals

That's 5 streaks of 5+ games with no goals in ONE season. And, from Feb 13-March 25, he only had 2 goals in 20 games.

That's NOT what I consider a goal scorer.

[chernobylwraiths]

I did not blame injury. In fact, I used goals per game to eliminate that very variable. So don't pull that **** on me.

He is 8th amongst active players in goals per game. And 61st all time.

How many current players do score more than 40 year consistently?

That bar is not hit often in today's NHL. It just isn't.

This is why your tone gets criticized - I provided facts, stats and numbers and you choose to ignore them.

You know I respect you and read what you write - do the same back. Look at the stats. Vanek is one of the top 8 goals scorers in the NHL at this time.

That is a fact - whether you like it or not.

But if you take away those games where he scores in bunches ...

[OpIv37]

I did not blame injury. In fact, I used goals per game to eliminate that very variable. So don't pull that **** on me.

He is 8th amongst active players in goals per game. And 61st all time.

How many current players do score more than 40 year consistently?

That bar is not hit often in today's NHL. It just isn't.

This is why your tone gets criticized - I provided facts, stats and numbers and you choose to ignore them.

You know I respect you and read what you write - do the same back. Look at the stats. Vanek is one of the top 8 goals scorers in the NHL at this time.

That is a fact - whether you like it or not.

First, I wasn't saying that you were going to blame injury- I was just putting that out there before someone brought it up since I had the info in front of me.

I don't see how Vanek, with 32 goals last year and 28 the year before that, can be considered a top goal scorer. It's certainly not bad, but it's not "top goal scorer" and it's not worth $6.5 million. In fact, I remember checking the stats last year and the year before and Vanek being ranked ~40th in the NHL in goals at various points in the season.

Now, if Vanek continues at the pace he's at right now for the remainder of this season, then he will be worth every penny. But given his past inconsistency, I just don't see that happening.

And BTW, this whole thing started because I COMPLIMENTED Vanek on his shootout abilities, but apparently that wasn't enough of a compliment for you.

[OpIv37]

But if you take away those games where he scores in bunches ...

Um no. I'm not doing that at all.

I said he's inconsistent. Streaky. That means he scores in bunches then goes stone cold.

Lecter is arguing that he's consistent- I'm showing where he's not.

[hydro]

And btw, this post is going down the rabbit hole again. Rather than addressing the points I made about the team and how they played, it's criticizing my tone and what I've said in the past.

So what? If you continue to be ridiculous I will continue to call you out for being ridiculous. I know it annoys you which makes it all that much more fun and rewarding.

[OpIv37]

So what? If you continue to be ridiculous I will continue to call you out for being ridiculous. I know it annoys you which makes it all that much more fun and rewarding.

That's the problem.

I made some very real and very valid points about how the team played last night, but you'd rather pretend that they're "ridiculous" so you don't have to deal with them mentally.

Oh well, reality will kick you in the nuts soon enough, as it always does.

[Dr. Lecter]

Um no. I'm not doing that at all.

I said he's inconsistent. Streaky. That means he scores in bunches then goes stone cold.

Lecter is arguing that he's consistent- I'm showing where he's not.
I am arguing he is a good goal scorer. He is.

If you are going to take his "cold" streaks then you also need to do the same for other top scorers in the NHL. I am willing to bet that many of those players also have dry spells.

[Dr. Lecter]

That's the problem.

I made some very real and very valid points about how the team played last night, but you'd rather pretend that they're "ridiculous" so you don't have to deal with them mentally.

Oh well, reality will kick you in the nuts soon enough, as it always does.
Like when they missed the playoffs last year or lost the NE title two years ago?

You gave us the same warnings then.

Nobody is saying the team is perfect.

Fact is they are playing fairly well right now and winning games. Yet your primary (almost only) focus is the negative despite them winning games, being first in the NE and only one out of first in the East. (and 4th in the NHL)

Is all of that worthy of primarily negative reviews and comments? Not to say they not exist - the team is not undefeated - but does that need to be the constant focus?

[psubills62]

You always say there is never anything good in a loss. If that is true, back off *****ing about wins. You always say that is all you want of the team. So they win and you still are not happy.
This. Double standard.

[SkateZilla]

I never know what to think about games like this.

One one hand, the 3rd period was probably the most dominant period I've seen from the Sabres yet. Lindy made a great call putting Vanek, Roy and Pominville together- I hope he doesn't stick with it long-term because it makes our lines very lopsided, but it's what we needed tonight.

Enroth definitely came to play. And for all the criticism I've given to Vanek over the years, he's ridiculous on the shootout. Nothing fancy- just blasts a wrist shot past the goalie and makes it look easy every time.

And we got the 2 points on the road.

On the other hand, we looked amateurish and unprepared for the first two periods. Enroth was the only one who came to play. As bad as Myers has been, I don't know why he was in the press box while Leopold was playing because Leopold was absolutely brutal. Even Regehr screwed up on the 2nd goal, doubling the guy with the puck while two Habs stood open on the other side.

We gave up a goal while on the PK to one of the worst PP teams in the league, and our PP failed to score on the 4 on 3 despite two chances totaling almost 4 min of playing time.

And because we showed up 2 periods late, we gave up the extra point to an EC team for the 3rd time in 5 games.

We got the win, but we didn't play well against a very average Montreal team. I know I'll probably take **** for complaining about a win, but just for once, try not to look at it in terms of this game but in terms of the overall picture. This team has shown some major flaws, many of which have carried over from previous years. And we don't get to play teams that are at Montreal's level or worse. If we put up that kind of effort against Pittsburgh, Philly, Washington, Tampa Bay, even Toronto or the Rangers (not to mention 1/2 the Western conference), we lose.

All good points tbh

[hydro]

That's the problem.

I made some very real and very valid points about how the team played last night, but you'd rather pretend that they're "ridiculous" so you don't have to deal with them mentally.

Oh well, reality will kick you in the nuts soon enough, as it always does.

You think they are valid. I think some are just over analyzed drivel. To each their own...

[trapezeus]

i side with op about giving a point up to a team in your division. that is a frustrating place to be. however, they could have given up 2. so i'm not that angry. The habs have to be pissed. they had a chance to get 2 and they left it out there in the 3rd.

The calls for kassian are growing. we need the nastiness.

[Cleve]

Well, at least the Sabres showed some heart and rebounded.

It's been a tough week - and I think they were SCREWED by the NHL. They give Kaleta a 4 game suspension when somebody doesn't even get hurt, and the NHL gives Lucic a pat on the back!?? Disgusting!!!

What's this Shanahan's e-mail address? We should hit him with some e-mail blasts ourselves.

[OpIv37]

Like when they missed the playoffs last year or lost the NE title two years ago?

You gave us the same warnings then.

Nobody is saying the team is perfect.

Fact is they are playing fairly well right now and winning games. Yet your primary (almost only) focus is the negative despite them winning games, being first in the NE and only one out of first in the East. (and 4th in the NHL)

Is all of that worthy of primarily negative reviews and comments? Not to say they not exist - the team is not undefeated - but does that need to be the constant focus?

Actually, last year I said they would make the playoffs with a 1st round exit.

My primary focus is on the negative because the negative are long-standing, consistent problems with this team that still have not been solved. The positive are new developments that the team has yet to prove they can sustain.

So, it is my contention that the negative will continue to define the team and the positive are temporary developments until proven otherwise. In the long run, I think the negative will come back to bite this team in the ass and that's why I focus on it. If you disagree, fine, let's talk hockey. But you people seem more interested in discussing my perceived negativity than discussing hockey.

[OpIv37]

Well, at least the Sabres showed some heart and rebounded.

It's been a tough week - and I think they were SCREWED by the NHL. They give Kaleta a 4 game suspension when somebody doesn't even get hurt, and the NHL gives Lucic a pat on the back!?? Disgusting!!!

What's this Shanahan's e-mail address? We should hit him with some e-mail blasts ourselves.

Apparently, past history has more to do with the suspension than the actual offense.

So, all the Sabres who don't have a history of suspension (which, to my knowledge, is everyone except Kaleta) gets a free run at an opposing goaltender.

[Dr. Lecter]

Actually, last year I said they would make the playoffs with a 1st round exit.

My primary focus is on the negative because the negative are long-standing, consistent problems with this team that still have not been solved. The positive are new developments that the team has yet to prove they can sustain.

So, it is my contention that the negative will continue to define the team and the positive are temporary developments until proven otherwise. In the long run, I think the negative will come back to bite this team in the ass and that's why I focus on it. If you disagree, fine, let's talk hockey. But you people seem more interested in discussing my perceived negativity than discussing hockey.

Actually late in the season you made a number of statements about them not making it.

And, again, your attitude only comes up because you refuse to say anything good about the team. Nor do you acknowledge that other teams have negative aspects too.

[OpIv37]

Actually late in the season you made a number of statements about them not making it.

And, again, your attitude only comes up because you refuse to say anything good about the team. Nor do you acknowledge that other teams have negative aspects too.


I don't care about the negative aspects of other teams because I'm not a fan of them.

And go back and read my first post. I DID say good things about the Sabres. I said they played a great 3rd period, I said Lindy made a good decision on changing the lines, I said Enroth was playing well and I said Vanek was great on shootouts.

[Dr. Lecter]

I don't care about the negative aspects of other teams because I'm not a fan of them.

And go back and read my first post. I DID say good things about the Sabres. I said they played a great 3rd period, I said Lindy made a good decision on changing the lines, I said Enroth was playing well and I said Vanek was great on shootouts.
But you do need to care when making comparative statements about the Sabres and not recognizing that the negatives you point out exist across the league

[OpIv37]

But you do need to care when making comparative statements about the Sabres and not recognizing that the negatives you point out exist across the league

Yeah well just because other teams have the same negatives doesn't make it acceptable. And many of those teams also have positives that we don't have.

[Dr. Lecter]

Yeah well just because other teams have the same negatives doesn't make it acceptable. And many of those teams also have positives that we don't have.
And this team has positives the other teams do not have.

Point is, no team is perfect. Demanding perfection in sports is fruitless and will never happen.

That is the point. Unless the Sabres go 82-0-0 you will be very unhappy. That is the point of all of this. We can discuss weaknesses, but a team having a weakness is not unacceptable.

If you think that, you have no understanding of pro sports.

[SkateZilla]

every team has things they do well and things they dont.

we play like crap well... so we're good in that area.

[OpIv37]

And this team has positives the other teams do not have.

Point is, no team is perfect. Demanding perfection in sports is fruitless and will never happen.

That is the point. Unless the Sabres go 82-0-0 you will be very unhappy. That is the point of all of this. We can discuss weaknesses, but a team having a weakness is not unacceptable.

If you think that, you have no understanding of pro sports.

And this is the red herring argument that always comes up when I make a legitimate point about something the team did wrong.

I am not demanding perfection.

Our vaunted PK gave up a PP goal to a terrible PP team (27th in the league going into the season, something around 11%). Our PP unit failed to score in nearly 4 minutes of 4 on 3 time. We played two horrendous periods.

I'm not demanding perfection and saying that we should NEVER allow a PP goal. I'm saying that PK is one of the positives on this team and they should be able to shut down Montreal's PP.

I'm not demanding perfection from our PP unit by saying they should score every time, but they should be able to get at least 1 goal with all that open ice in 4 on 3 time.

I'm not demanding perfection in saying that we should play every period as well as we played the 3rd period, but we have to do better than those first 2 periods.

If we do any ONE of these 3 things, we get the win in regulation and don't give up the extra point in the standings to Montreal or risk losing in OT.

Yet, somehow, this gets twisted into me "demanding perfection." :rolleyes:

[Mski]

Two things:

I have adressed what you said - I think the idea that Vanek is not an elite goal scorer has been set to rest. If you choose to pay attention to the facts.

And part of the reason your tone gets criticized is because you do not listen or pay attention to anything anybody else says and dismiss it all.

BTW - one other note - they said last night that in the last 3 years (or was it 5) Vanek is the leading PP goal scorer in the NHL.

What more does he have to do to be called a goal scorer?he leads the league in PP goals since the lock out

[Dr. Lecter]

And this is the red herring argument that always comes up when I make a legitimate point about something the team did wrong.

I am not demanding perfection.

Our vaunted PK gave up a PP goal to a terrible PP team (27th in the league going into the season, something around 11%). Our PP unit failed to score in nearly 4 minutes of 4 on 3 time. We played two horrendous periods.

I'm not demanding perfection and saying that we should NEVER allow a PP goal. I'm saying that PK is one of the positives on this team and they should be able to shut down Montreal's PP.

I'm not demanding perfection from our PP unit by saying they should score every time, but they should be able to get at least 1 goal with all that open ice in 4 on 3 time.

I'm not demanding perfection in saying that we should play every period as well as we played the 3rd period, but we have to do better than those first 2 periods.

If we do any ONE of these 3 things, we get the win in regulation and don't give up the extra point in the standings to Montreal or risk losing in OT.

Yet, somehow, this gets twisted into me "demanding perfection." :rolleyes:


You missed my point entirely. You are saying that you do not care that other teams have weaknesses. The point is all teams have them and saying a weakness is unacceptable is demanding perfection.

As for the PK, they are 3rd in the NHL. Look at the bigger picture and not focus on a snapshot (like you are always telling us). To say that their PK should never allow a goal against Montreal is silly.

And yes they gave up a point. On the road in a place that is hard to play. So saying that they are not allowed to give up one point on the road is - demanding perfection.

You keep saying that you do not demand it - but you have a full blown rant about a win. A win. And then make a few side comments that are positive.

You really are not getting the point.

[Mski]

And yes they gave up a point. On the road in a place that is hard to play. So saying that they are not allowed to give up one point on the road is - demanding perfection. i dont think they gave up anything... with the way they played in the first two periods, they were luck Montreal gave them the free point, and the sabres were able to steal the second in the shoot out..... thats what really bothers me about the "we gave up a point to div op, its going to come back to haunt us" arguement.... it goes both ways..... Montreal laying an egg in the third and alowing Buffalo to get the W is going to haunt them more than it will us giving them 1

[SkateZilla]

i dont like how Luke Adam's face didnt show anything after being benched in the 3rd..

he was still happy go lucky chewing on his mouthguard everytime his line went out and he was forced to stay on the bench.

there i complained about something .

[OpIv37]

You missed my point entirely. You are saying that you do not care that other teams have weaknesses. The point is all teams have them and saying a weakness is unacceptable is demanding perfection.
Teams have to strive for perfection even though no team will ever attain it. Weaknesses will happen- that doesn't make them acceptable.



As for the PK, they are 3rd in the NHL. Look at the bigger picture and not focus on a snapshot (like you are always telling us). To say that their PK should never allow a goal against Montreal is silly.
No, it really isn't silly. Saying they should NEVER allow a PP goal is silly. Saying they shouldn't allow a PP goal against a weak PP team is NOT silly at all. It's the sign of a good PK.



And yes they gave up a point. On the road in a place that is hard to play. So saying that they are not allowed to give up one point on the road is - demanding perfection.
It's one thing to give up a point because you're playing a better team on the road, or have injuries, or something like that. They gave up a point to a mediocre team because they played like **** for 2 periods. That is unacceptable, and saying so is FAR from demanding perfection. It's demanding accountability.




You keep saying that you do not demand it - but you have a full blown rant about a win. A win. And then make a few side comments that are positive.

You really are not getting the point.
If you think that was a "full blown rant," obviously you haven't been paying much attention to my posts. I SPENT HALF OF THE "RANT" COMPLIMENTING THE TEAM, not just a few side comments.

And an OT win only counts as half a win because of the NHL's points system.

[OpIv37]

i dont think they gave up anything... with the way they played in the first two periods, they were luck Montreal gave them the free point, and the sabres were able to steal the second in the shoot out..... thats what really bothers me about the "we gave up a point to div op, its going to come back to haunt us" arguement.... it goes both ways..... Montreal laying an egg in the third and alowing Buffalo to get the W is going to haunt them more than it will us giving them 1

stop and think about that for a second.

How can you say they didn't give up anything while admitting they played poorly for the first two periods?

If they play well for all three periods, or maybe even just 2 of the 3, they get out of there with a regulation win and don't risk the OT loss or give up the extra point.

Your point makes sense AFTER the first two periods were in the books, but there is no excuse for how bad those first two periods were. That's why the Sabres gave up a point.

[SkateZilla]

i think Op is needed in the Bills forums for a while.... they suck too ya now... dont waste all your time on the sabres... the bills need some love too.

[OpIv37]

i think Op is needed in the Bills forums for a while.... they suck too ya now... dont waste all your time on the sabres... the bills need some love too.


The Bills are just hopeless. I should have known that it was too good to be true.

I expect more from the Sabres.

[Crisis]

Montreal had 6 powerplays... it's not unreasonable to give up a powerplay goal to a team with 6 PPs no matter how bad theirs is.

Edit: Not to mention one of our best PKers in Gaustad took too many dumb penalties and was in the box for half of those, and I think Montreal scored with him in the box? (I missed most of 1st/2nd period)

[SkateZilla]

considering it was Cole shooting a 100 MPH slap shot into a pretty much empty net because 2 sabres and one canadien were both groping enroth for a second.

[Dr. Lecter]

Teams have to strive for perfection even though no team will ever attain it. Weaknesses will happen- that doesn't make them acceptable.
Maybe understandable is a better word.



No, it really isn't silly. Saying they should NEVER allow a PP goal is silly. Saying they shouldn't allow a PP goal against a weak PP team is NOT silly at all. It's the sign of a good PK.
A sign of a good PK is where they rank and how they perform over time. A snapshot does not do that.

You knock me and others for saying Vanek actually has goal scoring ability and accuse us of basing it on only 12 games (Note: that was disproven and you still have not said who in the NHL constantly scores 40 per year - but I digress) yet is fine for you to focus on one PK and say the Sabres PK is not good while ignoring what it has done this year and last year.


It's one thing to give up a point because you're playing a better team on the road, or have injuries, or something like that. They gave up a point to a mediocre team because they played like **** for 2 periods. That is unacceptable, and saying so is FAR from demanding perfection. It's demanding accountability.


If they give a up a point to every east team on the road, while getting two, it will be fine. Again, it was a road game. The other team plays too.


If you think that was a "full blown rant," obviously you haven't been paying much attention to my posts. I SPENT HALF OF THE "RANT" COMPLIMENTING THE TEAM, not just a few side comments.

And you said you did so begrudgingly.


And an OT win only counts as half a win because of the NHL's points system.
No, it is still a full win. They still got two points.

[Dr. Lecter]

Montreal had 6 powerplays... it's not unreasonable to give up a powerplay goal to a team with 6 PPs no matter how bad theirs is.

Edit: Not to mention one of our best PKers in Gaustad took too many dumb penalties and was in the box for half of those, and I think Montreal scored with him in the box? (I missed most of 1st/2nd period)

Good point. Give any team enough PPs and they will score.

[chernobylwraiths]

Good point. Give any team enough PPs and they will score.

No, bad power play teams only score against bad penalty kill teams.

[OpIv37]

Montreal had 6 powerplays... it's not unreasonable to give up a powerplay goal to a team with 6 PPs no matter how bad theirs is.

Edit: Not to mention one of our best PKers in Gaustad took too many dumb penalties and was in the box for half of those, and I think Montreal scored with him in the box? (I missed most of 1st/2nd period)

OK, then, how about NOT GIVING UP 6 PP's?

[OpIv37]

Maybe understandable is a better word.


A sign of a good PK is where they rank and how they perform over time. A snapshot does not do that.

You knock me and others for saying Vanek actually has goal scoring ability and accuse us of basing it on only 12 games (Note: that was disproven and you still have not said who in the NHL constantly scores 40 per year - but I digress) yet is fine for you to focus on one PK and say the Sabres PK is not good while ignoring what it has done this year and last year.


I NEVER said the PK was not good. I said that they shouldn't give up PP goals to bad PP teams. Don't put words in my mouth to make your point.



If they give a up a point to every east team on the road, while getting two, it will be fine. Again, it was a road game. The other team plays too.



And you said you did so begrudgingly.


No, it is still a full win. They still got two points.

Except here's the problem: this is horrendous logic because they WON'T get two points against every East team on the road. No team in the history of the NHL has ever been that good. So, there is a good chance that those extra points could come back to haunt them.

And given how horrendous the Sabres are at home, they're going to have to come out of a lot more away games without giving up the extra point if they want to get anywhere.

And there was nothing fun about watching those first two periods.